zlacker

>>gdb+(OP)
They were able to attract talent and PR in the name of altruism and here they are now trying to flip the switch as quietly as possible. If the partner gets a vote/profit then a "charter" or "mission" won't change anything. You will never be able to explicitly prove that a vote had a "for profit" motive.

Elon was irritated that he was behind in the AI intellectual property race and this narrative created a perfect opportunity. Not surprised in the end. Tesla effectively did the same thing - "come help me save the planet" with overpriced cars. [Edit: Apparently Elon has left OpenAI but I don't believe for a second that he will not participate in this LP]

>>stevie+j9
This seems like an unnecessarily cynical take on things. And ultimately, if the outcome is the same, what do you (or anyone) really care if people are making more money from it or if there are commercial purposes?

The OpenAI staff are literally some of the most employable folks on earth; if they have a problem with the new mission it's incredibly easy for them to leave and find something else.

Additionally, I think there's a reason to give Sam the benefit of the doubt. YC has made multiple risky bets that were in line with their stated mission rather than a clear profit motive. For example, adding nonprofits to the batch and supporting UBI research.

Their's nothing wrong with having a profit motive or using the upsides of capitalism to further their goals.